[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: formatted output

From   Jeph Herrin <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: formatted output
Date   Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:17:49 -0500


By **S I meant to refer to SAS, sometimes viewed as unmentionable
on this list.

I was an early and longtime user of TeX, typsetting my math PhD
dissertation and that of a few of my classmates, and still fire
up MikTex for some applications. So the LaTex learning curve shouldn't
be a barrier. What is a barrier is collaboration with others -
on some projects it would useful and others it would be an obstacle.
ODT I can at least convert to other formats that can be marked up,
but not **TeX. Hence my reluctance to go too far down that path.
Still, I will give it a look.


Neil Shephard wrote:
I've no idea what you refer to with **S, but I'd highly recommend
investing the time to go through the learning curve for using LaTeX.
I find it an absolute delight to use as it separates style from
content so you don't have to worry about wasting time formatting each
bit of text.

There are innumerable useful user-written commands for generating
tables and formatted output that can be '\include{}' or '\input{}'
into your main document, and embedding png/eps/ps formatted graphs is
a doddle.

Some packages off the top of my head that are very useful for this are
-listtab- and -tabout-.

More can be found with -findit latex- and the top set of hits point to
UCLA's web-pages on this subject "Stata tools for LaTeX"

The only major draw back is that you have to drag people away from
their ingrained usage of WYSIWYG word-processing who might never have
considered that there is an alternative to the ubiquitous M$-Word.

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index